superpowers-receiving-code-review

To validate code-review feedback, enforce a disciplined process to read, verify, and rationalize each item before implementation, guarding against unvetted suggestions and preparing verifiable justifications for applied changes.

Handling technically dubious code-review comments requires rigorous verification and clarification of ambiguous requirements to validate technical accuracy before proceeding with careful, testable implementation to prevent regressions.

To prevent regressions when applying mixed code-review feedback, validate each item individually before action and adopt a structured approach to testing changes, ensuring only verified feedback is implemented with verifiable justifications.

You need a structured process for code-review verification when feedback is unclear or technically dubious, mandating rigorous verification, clarification of ambiguous requirements, and careful implementation to satisfy functional requirements.

Yes, code-review validation allows optional scripts, references, and assets directories for extended capabilities, satisfying functional requirements by mandating YAML frontmatter with name and description while supporting extended verification workflows.